As I listened to Donald Trump give his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last week in Cleveland, Ohio, the old saying the proof is in the pudding came to mind. Then it occurred to me: In this case, the adage is not quite correct. It should be the proof is in the recipe, not the pudding! For, if Congress actually allowed the Republican presidential nominee’s recipe for “curing the ills” of our country to be concocted, it would indeed produce a tasteless stew, if not a poisonous one. Surely even the Republican-held Congress—the other cooks in the picture—would reject Trump’s half-baked pudding recipe to mend our broken system of government, because it’s widely perceived as detrimental and provocative both domestically and globally.

I found this global perspective from an American political and security risk analyst writing for a Middle Eastern audience. On the English-language service of the Al Arabiya News World Channel, blogging for the Al Arabiya News July 23, 2016, Brooklyn Middleton, posted “On Donald Trump’s Acceptance Speech of Doom.” She began her comments by stating,

Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was as surreal as it was horrifying; portraying the current state of affairs in the United States as utterly bleak, the passion Trump showed when vowing to restore “law and order” in January 2017 was matched only by the excitement he showed while slandering immigrants and refugees. He baselessly blamed Hilary Clinton for nearly every single crisis in the Middle East, claiming her legacy is one of “death, destruction and weakness.” But, per usual, he failed to follow up even one of his insults with a solution[emphasis mine]. (http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2016/07/23/
On-Donald-Trump-s-acceptance-speech-of-doom-.html)

For me, the disproof in the pudding came when I heard Trump say in that same speech, “I alone can fix it. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I alone am your voice.” I thought his mind must be in the land of make-believe.

The claim is ludicrous, because there’s not a scintilla of credibility to such an assertion anywhere, anytime, much less in the three-branched representative democracy that we have. No one can do anything alone, whether fix or break. These are things we do as a people. But beyond that, in a democratic republic such as ours, it would be anathema. Therefore, after such an unworkable claim, whatever else he mentions in his acceptance speech ends up being suspect as well. Either it can’t be done because the doing of it is impossible or it can’t be done because the doing of it is immoral if not illegal or unconstitutional. Plainly put, he violates what we call the simple truths of life, parameters of principle and conduct that all of us, whether as American citizens or just human beings living together on one planet, politicians and nonpoliticians alike, should live by. We talked about these simple truths in our recently published book Political Straight Talk: A Prescription for Mending Our Broken System of Government, digging deep into our country’s founding values for these truths, well before Trump and his rejection of these values had begun to dominate the Republican party.

These values of integrity, empathy toward compassion, and service (being other-centered rather than self-centered) are the necessary and sufficient ingredients in any effective and humane political discourse or decision. For any healthy and responsible system—government, family, community, or economic—to thrive, all three of these ingredients must be present. Because coming from these principles is the only way our broken system of government, and likewise our unfair economic system, can be mended. The acid test as to whether or not the mending has occurred is if both political parties see the wisdom of cooperating with one another and in routinely employing the simple truths of life learning to listen to one another and to compromise with each—or all—of the political parties’ viewpoints, so that legislation can be passed and our president is able to sign laws that address not only the needs of the rich and powerful, but middle class and poor Americans as well. When Hillary Clinton said in her acceptance speech last night, “And here’s what I believe. I believe America thrives when the middle class thrives. I believe that our economy isn’t working the way it should because our democracy isn’t working the way it should,” my first thought was oh she’s read our book!

In stark contrast, Trump sounded like a dictator rather than a candidate for the highest office in the land, arguably the most powerful position in the world, President of the United States. One woman I talked to recently said he sounded like Mussolini. When you consider the dictatorial way he spoke, his facial expressions, and the body language he used when he proclaimed his plan to single-handedly “fix” the system—not in the image of all Americans, but rather in the image of his blame-seeking and prejudicial electorate, if not merely in his own self-regarding image, the resemblance is uncanny. How is that going to mend our broken system of government? It’s not complicated: it’s not.

How in the world can he “single-handedly fix the system,” when, as Middleton states, “Trumps strategy to obscure the fact that he has absolutely no understanding of international affairs whatsoever is to regurgitate single lines of basic analysis while vowing that he will be a panacea for the world’s ills”? The emphasis there is all mine, because the comment is right on target. How he portrays himself is quite disturbing if you have any regard for the living vision of our Founding Fathers toward fulfilling the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all the people. Trump’s disregard for the cohesive and collaborative aspect of making a “more perfect union” borders on grandiosity, which is itself a dangerous state of mind for a sitting president of the most powerful country on the planet. One would never know if it was his pretentious reverie of exaggerated and hollow thinking heading into the Situation Room, if sufficiently provoked, or if a cooler head is even available to him as Commander in Chief or wielder of Executive Powers. His predictability is difficult to assess, because his thinking is extreme, which could lead to excessive action and result in dire consequences for all concerned.

Middleton further states, “Ultimately, the entire speech was predicated on the notion that America remains on the brink of collapse due to nefarious actors abroad and on our own soil. The speech reiterated the fact that Trump has to continue keeping his supporters in a state of manufactured panic or they may begin demanding actual policy outlines.” (Italics, mine.)

Middleton’s final comment nailed it for us at home as well: “Perhaps the most outrageous lie Trump attempted to tell the US was that he speaks for the American people. ‘I am your voice,’ he twice bellowed. Despite how loud and shrill Trump is, his voice will never be anyone’s but his own.”

We must keep in mind that regardless of the grandiose ideas Trump may have, as president of the United States, he would need Congress’s willingness to write and pass the laws he needs to carry out his fanciful ideas. And there’s the missing ingredient in his “pudding recipe.” For it’s quite questionable that his concoction would pass the taste test, let alone the smell test, to the “cooks” of Congress. Given his desire to go it alone, it is highly unlikely they would be willing to swallow what he was trying to jam down their throats. In other words, his proving pudding would simply end up being a bowl of hot air, not a single morsel for Congress or the electorate to sink their teeth into.

And that’s the best-case scenario. Does anyone need this spoon-fed to them?